The 5D mark II only became popular for video once people realized that they could create movies that looked amazing with a $2500 camera and $500 lens. Before, they had previously been relying on expensive systems which kept many people out of the business. We decided it was worth it to deal with the cumbersome body types, impractical focusing, crappy formats that made editing difficult and grading worse, lack of ND filters and XLR audio inputs, horrible rolling shutter, and other stuff IF we could make great movies with $750 - $5000 budgets. Canon has it ALL WRONG. We don't want DSLR video cameras. They suck for video. We want great video quality for DSLR prices and with the 5D mark II, it became mostly possible. Sony, Panasonic, and RED are doing it right and trying to bring 35mm or APS-C chip dedicated video cameras (with real video features) into DSLR prices. I was kind of hoping that since Canon's $800 60d with 3 year old tech can take some pretty amazing video, for $3000, they should be able to make that breathtaking. Guess not.

seanmcr6

In the video post 2 months ago, the Canon guy clearly said they didn't have a proper codec to output 10 bit 422...so they had to use the codec from their XF cam line. (talking about the C300 here) In that video, he stated it takes a good 2 years to develop your own codec. So that would be about now.

The C500 and 1Dc are evolutionary products. These cameras obviously use a new codec. This allows these camera's to process and output what the original cameras should have been able to when they were released.

The 1Dc is exactly a 1Dx with the new codec. That's it. I think it's rather ridiculous that Canon charges an extra $8k for (basically) a codec upgrade.

Time will tell what the price of the C500 is, but I can assure you it will be much more than the $16K that the C300 it. Although, in my opinion, the C500 is simply the camera the C300 should have been...and it should remain at the $16K price point.

Canon has been in the video game for a long, long time. They understand who their customers are and how to make money from them. That's business.

The convergence of photography and videography/filmmaking was unexpected (something Canon has stated a few times) and they are just trying to run with it as best they can. Unfortunately, it is the hobbyist and semi-pro's who are doing all the complaining. I would put the C500 (based on spec sheet) up against a $65,000 alexa. That's an impressive move forward. The C500 also has better output specs than the Red Scarlet....so as long as it performs as stated, it won't be at that price point. Probably closer to the Epic. I still feel like that would be a mistake....but I'm confident that's the comparisons and price points Canon will use.

Logged

tjc320

I would buy the C300 over this. Here is why: Because I don't need 4K video. I want the 4K sensor but I really don't need 4K video. In the last two years I can't think of one job where I would have used it. The convenience of the C300's body, form factor, and features put it over the 1D Cinema.

For this price I can buy the FS-700 (a camera packed with features) in addition to a Canon 5D Mark III as a B camera as well as a stills camera.

I think that 90% of video shooters could do without the photography features in the 1D Cinema. So why are they in there other than to inflate the price and avoid having to rework a camera style.

"Unlike the C300, the EOS-1D C does not offer zebra striping or peaking focus aids, which the company sees as being more important in single-person operated documentary settings, rather than the rig-and-crew situations it expects the 1D C to be used in."

But considering how trivial those are to add (even ML people added it in come on!) why on Earth leave them out? What about the times they are used outside of rig-and-crew? Seems beyond bizarre.

AND more to the 5D3 point, why did they NOT put those two things (plus 1.6x crop 1920x1080 video) in the 5D3?!?!

They just indirectly admitted above that the 5D3 will often be used as single-person operated and thus in dire need of such abilities!

They just make no sense in their actions.

Who is running the roost? Sounds like marketing guys who never picked up a cam in their life and just randomly try to find way to segment products so they can give interesting business presentations.

Do they not read how badly they are getting blasted all over movie filming boards about leaving those basic little things out?

Why? Why?

Just such minor little changes from their marketing department and they could get a 180 degree difference response to their products. Enough with the silly segmentation and games playing already. Wow.

tjc320

WOW, I was hoping for $8000, EXPECTING more like $9000 to $10,000, but $15,000 GTFO o.O

This isn't a "DLSR" it's their C300 with a few less things for almost the same price.

If I'm gunna spend this much money, I rather buy a R.E.D. Scarletat least I KNOW what I'm getting.

WTH is Canon doing....

Keep in mind a Scarlet will cost you about $25,000 after buying everything you need. That's another 10K so it's not really comparable. You may be able to get buy with spending $20,000 but you'll be limited.

While it's true that the 1D Cinema doesn't have all the features that the C300 has - it does have one major thing over it: 4K output.

Look bro. From whatever angle you look at this thing It's is an instrument of Photography. IT IS A Digital SLR THAT SHOOTS IN 4K. Digital Cinema Cameras across the board don't have shutters in them that flip. even old motion picture film cameras had a rotating shutter wheel. If it looks like a photo camera. Snaps like a photo camera. IT'S A PHOTO CAMERA! (that happens to shoot in 4k). and I promise you at 15,000 film makers and television producers AREN'T GOING TO SHOOT WITH SOMETHING THAT IS A PHOTO CAMERA

How many references to cinema, filmmakers, and directors do there need to be for you to accept that this was made with filmmakers in mind? Why are they releasing it at NAB and not a photo expo?

You can call it a still camera if you want, but this isn't being marketed towards photographers, it's under "video cameras,'" and it's part of the CINEMA EOS line, so how exactly is this not supposed to appeal to filmmakers? I guarantee you more filmmakers will use this than photographers. I'm sure the majority of photographers would prefer a 2 1DX's over this thing. There are absolutely no advantages to the 1DC over the 1DX in terms of stills, so why would a photographer want to spend $7k more?

People have gotten used to shooting video with DSLRs and have spent thousands of dollars working around it's form factor and all the recent video camera releases have had a more modular design. They shoot commercials, TV shows, movies with a 5DII/7D/5DIII, why in the hell would they reject this just because of the ergonomics? If the image quality is good, people are going to use it, bottom line. Oh and I'm not your bro.

gene_can_sing

Canon has completely JUMPED the Shark lately with their very overpriced Video offerings.

Contrary to what many stills people have been posting, just because you work in TV (as I do), does NOT mean that I want to spend an arm and a leg for a sub-performing video camera like what Canon has been offering.

I had about $8K to spend on a camera, and now I'm afraid it's going to Sony who is going to clean house in the $4K to $10K range because of Canon's many miss-steps in video.

They need to replace their marketing division in video because they just keep missing the mark.

No matter how much cash you have, if you're smart, you still want what's best for you money, and Canon video is NOT that.

Canon has completely JUMPED the Shark lately with their very overpriced Video offerings.

Contrary to what many stills people have been posting, just because you work in TV (as I do), does NOT mean that I want to spend an arm and a leg for a sub-performing video camera like what Canon has been offering.

I had about $8K to spend on a camera, and now I'm afraid it's going to Sony who is going to clean house in the $4K to $10K range because of Canon's many miss-steps in video.

They need to replace their marketing division in video because they just keep missing the mark.

No matter how much cash you have, if you're smart, you still want what's best for you money, and Canon video is NOT that.

We can only hope that Canon has something else planned down the line, but I'm not going to hold my breath. If this camera had higher frame rates, built-in ND's, and a host of other features I wouldn't complain at all, but from what I've seen the thing just isn't worth $15k, there are so many alternatives in that price range it just doesn't seem like a standout.

Look bro. From whatever angle you look at this thing It's is an instrument of Photography. IT IS A Digital SLR THAT SHOOTS IN 4K. Digital Cinema Cameras across the board don't have shutters in them that flip. even old motion picture film cameras had a rotating shutter wheel. If it looks like a photo camera. Snaps like a photo camera. IT'S A PHOTO CAMERA! (that happens to shoot in 4k). and I promise you at 15,000 film makers and television producers AREN'T GOING TO SHOOT WITH SOMETHING THAT IS A PHOTO CAMERA

How many references to cinema, filmmakers, and directors do there need to be for you to accept that this was made with filmmakers in mind? Why are they releasing it at NAB and not a photo expo?

You can call it a still camera if you want, but this isn't being marketed towards photographers, it's under "video cameras,'" and it's part of the CINEMA EOS line, so how exactly is this not supposed to appeal to filmmakers? I guarantee you more filmmakers will use this than photographers. I'm sure the majority of photographers would prefer a 2 1DX's over this thing. There are absolutely no advantages to the 1DC over the 1DX in terms of stills, so why would a photographer want to spend $7k more?

People have gotten used to shooting video with DSLRs and have spent thousands of dollars working around it's form factor and all the recent video camera releases have had a more modular design. They shoot commercials, TV shows, movies with a 5DII/7D/5DIII, why in the hell would they reject this just because of the ergonomics? If the image quality is good, people are going to use it, bottom line. Oh and I'm not your bro.

No one cares what it's being marketed as. Put it next to a Playstation 3 on a the Sony website doesn't make it a Gaming system. If this is in fact a digital cinema camera. Shouldn't the majority of the features resemble that?

Where are the XLR inputs?An adjustable screen maybe?

By the way... If you tell any major production company that you are going to shoot a tv show primarily with DSLR's you'd give someone a heart attack. The reason TV shows used Those cameras is because of their affordable price. I promise you, nobody would have ever used a 5d Mark II if it cost $15,000show me a show that shoots "regularly". on a 7d

And I'm sorry about the bro comment... that was rude.

Logged

tjc320

No one cares what it's being marketed as. Put it next to a Playstation 3 on a the Sony website doesn't make it a Gaming system. If this is in fact a digital cinema camera. Shouldn't the majority of the features resemble that?

Where are the XLR inputs?An adjustable screen maybe?

By the way... If you tell any major production company that you are going to shoot a tv show primarily with DSLR's you'd give someone a heart attack. The reason TV shows used Those cameras is because of their affordable price. I promise you, nobody would have ever used a 5d Mark II if it cost $15,000show me a show that shoots "regularly". on a 7d

And I'm sorry about the bro comment... that was rude.

I think you're both 100% accurate. It is a camera made for still photos. However, they are marketing it towards filmmakers. This, I think, is the fundamental reason why Canon is completely screwing themselves. I'm assuming they have a plan for these cameras and a long term goal for the line as a whole. Right now, I just don't see it. They sure aren't making it clear either.

I think Canon just needs to listen to users first and look at what their market is and how they can best compete with other companies.

A lot of info on these cameras should surface in the next few weeks that could help. Maybe they will lower the price like they did with the C300. Who knows...do they (Canon)?

No one cares what it's being marketed as. Put it next to a Playstation 3 on a the Sony website doesn't make it a Gaming system. If this is in fact a digital cinema camera. Shouldn't the majority of the features resemble that?

Where are the XLR inputs?An adjustable screen maybe?

By the way... If you tell any major production company that you are going to shoot a tv show primarily with DSLR's you'd give someone a heart attack. The reason TV shows used Those cameras is because of their affordable price. I promise you, nobody would have ever used a 5d Mark II if it cost $15,000show me a show that shoots "regularly". on a 7d

Ok, I get it, you would never use this camera for a video production, but that doesn't mean the rest of the world feels the same way. I would imagine people would love to use it as a B cam or in tight situations (which is the reason they used the 5DII on House). People use rigs, external recorders and external monitors, and this cam would function just as well using said equipment. I think this thing is crazy overpriced regardless, but I can see people opting for it in certain situations. It's kinda hard to judge until we see the footage coming out of it, it could be ridiculously incredibly awesome, and in that case I'm sure it would be well received. I think if the resolution is really amazing that people would be willing to deal with the hassles involved with shooting with a DSLR body. We'll see.